North Carolina Voters Pass Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Religion is constitutionally protected, so you have no choice under the LAW!

what in the world does that statement mean ??
freedom of religion is equal to freedom FROM religion or did you miss that part ??
in this country, we are free to choose ... so yes, we do have a choice.

when your religion oppresses my rights, it's a problem and a Constitutional one at that.
you may be free to exercise your religion but i am equally free to exercise my rights withOUT your religion or religious overtones.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Whether you agree with this or not, this is what America is all about. The lost art to let States rule what they want or not want without the Fed
dictating is really what we need to support. That is why we are called United States and not just one big State. The good part is if you do not like
it you can leave to a state that agrees with your views. When the Fed steps in where do you go?

Actually a very good point.

People jumping up and down about some states with immigration laws, others with abortion laws, now the gay thing in NC.

Considering the alternative, federal mandates and decrees, I'd take state rights.

Hello? I said civil union is fine with me! I didn’t vote to ban that in N. Carolina!

Do you want to ban porn, imagination and hands too? Should I not be allowed to spend time with my ladyfriend because we aren't
married?

Those are all against Christian belief but not against the law (although the law in most states prohibits sodomy – which prohibits gay sex).

The word sodomy acquired different meanings over time. Under the Common Law, sodomy consisted of anal intercourse. Traditionally courts and
statutes referred to it as a "crime against nature" or as copulation "against the order of nature." In the United States, the term eventually
encompassed oral sex as well as anal sex. The crime of sodomy was classified as a felony.

That is why Democracy is a huge failure, it allows the ignorant masses to trample anyone's rights as long as they outnumber them.

That is why the Republic is superior, because if we upheld the foundation of our Republic, the government would #1 not even be in the business of
handing out marriage licences (that's a religious matter).

And #2, the mob wouldn't be allowed to vote people's rights away.

The purpose of the Republic is to safeguard the rights of minorities while holding the majority in check. You cannot simply vote someone's natural
rights away.

In a "true democracy", people can vote anything into reality. They could vote to execute people for no reason, and it would be considered
legitimate. They can vote themselves money, anything is possible.

Yes, but the people of N. Carolina voted, which isn’t a religious vote but a constitutional one.

It is extremely unconstitutional to take personal private religious matters to the state, create legislation governing that behavior, and trample the
rights of citizens to make their own religious choice.

Marriage licences are unconstitutional in every conceivable manner. The state has no legitimate authority over these matters, "Separation of Church
and State" is suppose to be the law of the land you see.

You cannot vote someone's rights away, what is actually transpiring is that people are creating totalitarian legislation to control the lives of
citizens through dictatorial doctrines and regulations.

If this vote is legitimate, than we could easily vote out all of X racial group or X religious group and deport them from the nation! That's so
unreasonable and unconstitutional I can't even describe the level of discontent it overwhelms me with.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
That is why Democracy is a huge failure, it allows the ignorant masses to trample anyone's rights as long as they outnumber them.

That is why the Republic is superior, because if we upheld the foundation of our Republic, the government would #1 not even be in the business of
handing out marriage licences (that's a religious matter).

And #2, the mob wouldn't be allowed to vote people's rights away.

The purpose of the Republic is to safeguard the rights of minorities while holding the majority in check. You cannot simply vote someone's natural
rights away.

In a "true democracy", people can vote anything into reality. They could vote to execute people for no reason, and it would be considered
legitimate. They can vote themselves money, anything is possible.

Well, people did vote Obama to office, so you may have some validity.

But,

I still like having a say in things. Even if I'm one of the unwashed heathens who vote.

If you bothered to read my post, one of the things I explained is how a tiny minority, which is the fundamental christians of the far right, can
control legislature when in a democracy the majority's will is supposed to be imposed. The sentence you are talking about concerned the different
groups controlling our government and I listed three of the main groups, in my opinion, which would be corporations, Wall Street, and tiny minorities
aka SPECIAL interests. These special interests have such power because of powerful propaganda machines targeting the christian fundamentalists of the
far-right, who are known to vote in much greater numbers than the general population. There is nothing else linking any group to Wall Street except
for my observation in the final paragraph. Very simple to understand, I would think? If you bothered to read the post, you wouldn't have asked such
a question.

Originally posted by randomquestions
since when do straight people care about who F**S who in the ass? no, but really. This is out of straight people comfort areas- of course they would
vote no,because they are not a lesbo, gay, bi, or a tranny- they just don't get it and they would have no clue how to go about the matter. Why don't
they just let the gay population vote on this? oh that's right because "gaydom" affects us all, not just the person who gets bullied by the
majority. Farmer mac got every family member that can legally vote (including his 106 year old grandmother- of whom he only seen 3 day outta the last
35 years she's lived in the nursing home), loaded them up in his john deer, and once again the straights have turned gay-because they have just
screwed us up the ass.

In my home town area this issue isn't just about the "Gay" part so to speak. There have been several couples of the same sex who have no desire
to engage in carnal activities, they simply enjoy the company of each other to the point of wanting to engage in life activities together. Meaning
they want to live with each other just for the sake of "enjoyment of life", they also trust each other exclusively in all matters, but have no
desire to engage in carnal activities with each other.

I think we will see more and more of this type of behavior as the human race matures. honestly it only makes sense that two men or two women might
see eye to eye on issues that many (most) opposite sex unions do not. Most opposite sex unions require compromise due to gender role stigma, whereas
same sex unions do not. Granted this is mostly due to gender bias which I thought as intelligent humans we should be past this but, we still linger
on those roles we so despise.

Civil unions do not have to include carnal activities, many people overlook this aspect.

what in the world does that statement mean ??
freedom of religion is equal to freedom FROM religion or did you miss that part ??
in this country, we are free to choose ... so yes, we do have a choice.

Don’t try to twist the constitution to fit your agenda, Ma’am.

You do have a choice to break the law but there are consequences. The people voted…the law is the law…you are free to OBEY or not. Freedom from
religion means I can’t force my religious beliefs on you. Who is forcing religion on you??

Besides, all I read in the constitution was:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

what in the world does that statement mean ??
freedom of religion is equal to freedom FROM religion or did you miss that part ??
in this country, we are free to choose ... so yes, we do have a choice.

Don’t try to twist the constitution to fit your agenda, Ma’am.

You do have a choice to break the law but there are consequences. The people voted…the law is the law…you are free to OBEY or not. Freedom from
religion means I can’t force my religious beliefs on you. Who is forcing religion on you??

Besides, all I read in the constitution was:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is it you’re talking about? Nobody is forcing religion on you anyway!

People voted! You lost! Suck it up (no pun intended).

Many people feel as if (and rightly so) that the laws where created with religion in mind. Most people who did vote, voted with their religious
stigma in mind, therefore religion was/is forced down everyone's throat.

Our laws should not be based on a groups religious ideals, that is unfair to the whole community involved. If you cant see the the fact that
forcing your religious ideas upon a group of people that do not believe in your religion as wrong, then you need to do some "soul" searching.

That is why Democracy is a huge failure, it allows the ignorant masses to trample anyone's rights as long as they outnumber them.

If democracy came down in your favor you’d be all about it!

Besides, we don’t have true democracy in America (thankfully).

That is why the Republic is superior, because if we upheld the foundation of our Republic, the government would #1 not even be in the business
of handing out marriage licences (that's a religious matter).

States are free to issue civil unions. Most states give the same benefits to civil unions as they do for marriage. The ONLY difference between the two
is a federal tax exemption. Why don’t people stop worrying about money from the government! Do you LIVE to get a TAX RETURN? Do you budget for it??

Get real!

And #2, the mob wouldn't be allowed to vote people's rights away.

Sow me the constitutional right for gay marriage! I’ll wait!

The purpose of the Republic is to safeguard the rights of minorities while holding the majority in check. You cannot simply vote someone's natural
rights away.

In a "true democracy", people can vote anything into reality. They could vote to execute people for no reason, and it would be considered
legitimate. They can vote themselves money, anything is possible.

I expect this will be struck down as unconstitutional. As much as there can grant a right for two persons to unite and form a civil bond I doubt that
gender of the participants can be specified any more than race could be. At one time there were laws prohibiting inter-racial marriages but I don't
believe any of those can still be enforced.

Though this may come under the 10th Amendment provisions regarding States' rights there is still the 9th Amendment protecting the rights of the people
over other constitutional provisions or restrictions. I do not see how two people forming a civil bond could create a hardship or liability for any
other persons not involved. A business partnership neither specifies particular genders nor races.

A same-sex civil union, marriage, or whatever label given it need not necessarily demand sexual intercourse necessarily play any part in the union. A
same-sex union need not necessarily involve homosexual partners - two lifelong friends that have outlived their spouses may wish to unite so as to
give the other familial rights for hospital visitation, medical consent, or a chain for inheritance. How can such requests be denied? Morally they
cannot. Legally I doubt it will stand either.

I still like having a say in things. Even if I'm one of the unwashed heathens who vote.

You do have a say in certain matters. We all do.

But no one has a legitimate say in how you should live your life. That is a private matter and the government nor the populace has any authority to
intervene if it does not harm their liberties in any way.

We can't just all get together one day and decide to vote away someone's natural right as a human being.

Voting is intended to allow the citizenry to control the government, but instead this has turned into the people using voting/government to control
the private behavior of other citizens they disagree with.

The list is quite large, from drug use, marriage, what type of food you consume, etc.
They want to tell you what you can or cannot do, and this is not legitimate in any way at all.

The Bill of Rights lists natural rights of humans and then demands that the government must protect those rights. Any legislation created that
attempts to undermine or trample upon any rights listed within that document is by definition unconstitutional and illegitimate.

Marriage is clearly a religious issue, as shown throughout the world where almost every culture practices marriage and religious ceremony at the same
time. It's clearly a religious issue.

If we can ban their actions we are essentially banning a religious belief we disagree with. What will happen when they try to ban our religious
beliefs and customs? What will happen when Christianity or Islam is banned outright?

And what court will strike it down? The SCTOUS will have to hear these cases eventually. Considering it's 5-4 in favor of the conservative view, I
think it's unlikely it will be struck down anytime in the near future.

And when state's decide to step on the constitutional rights of others, that is one instance when the federal government is to step in, no? Yes,
rights for one group apply to all otherwise all men are not equal. Marriage is not protected by the constitution but equal rights are. Hence, women
getting the right to vote. Would you call a bill outlawing women's right to vote unconstitutional? Would you call a bill outlawing blacks and whites
from marrying unconstitutional? I thought so. When blacks were slaves and it was legal in the south, was it not the federal government's job to
overrule the unconstitutional laws of the southern states? (Why the southern states AGAIN!?!?) Was the federal government created in order to not
only facilitate trade between states among other thing, but also to be the final check on unconstitutional acts of the states? This call to 100% pure
state's rights would allow states to outlaw inter-racial marriages and slavery. I could honestly see slavery coming back to the south. Am I wrong
here on the federal government being a check on the states? Isn't that the role of the Supreme Court? I'm no constitutional scholar here, but I can
see where problems would arise from allowing states to enact whatever laws they want.

P.S. I think I proved this law and amendment banning gay marriage is 100% unconstitutional in the sense that rights given to one group should be
given to all groups. Marriage in the church is NOT the same as marriage in the state and federal government. If we apply laws of the church into the
law of government, then we are living in a theocracy, which is something that some groups in America want including some ATS members here. The church
is free to marry who they want, but do not get to decide who qualifies to get marriage licenses. You could eliminate the legal status of marriage for
straight people and then the gay marriage debate would be over. I somehow doubt that would happen. The church cannot deny the legal status of
marriage through law. By doing so, it is the very definition of theocracy. Remember, marriage in the church is mutually exclusive to marriage in the
state/federal government and it's legal status. That is the crux of the argument and as such the church has no right to legislate the legality of gay
marriage. Using the previous idea, banning gay marriage is unconstitutional as it denies the rights of one group to another group of people because
of the christian/catholic church. That is not the separation of the church and state and I think a court would consider it unconstitutional if the
argument was presented as such.

Many people feel as if (and rightly so) that the laws where created with religion in mind. Most people who did vote, voted with their
religious stigma in mind, therefore religion was/is forced down everyone's throat.

The people got the issue on the BALLOT because they wanted it! People VOTED on it!!!! This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment!

The decision people make in the ballot box is personal…you can’t legislate that!

Get real!

Our laws should not be based on a groups religious ideals, that is unfair to the whole community involved. If you cant see the the fact that
forcing your religious ideas upon a group of people that do not believe in your religion as wrong, then you need to do some "soul"
searching.

Nobody forced anything on you.

Religion has nothing to do with the LAW!!! People who believe the same as you voted also! Guess what? Most of the people disagreed with you! Stop
being a cry baby!

For example different religions have different customs for marriage, also historically religion played a major central role in that behavior.

You have no more a capacity to tell others who they can or cannot marry than others have to tell you who you can or cannot marry.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

"Prohibiting free exercise thereof" ?
Sounds like some people seek to use the government's power to create legislation that prevents people they disagree with from exercising their
religious beliefs...

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.